Holkesvig v. Welte
Randy Holkesvig, Plaintiff and Appellant
Peter David Welte, Defendant and Appellee
Northeast Central Judicial District,
Grand Forks County
Judge Steven L. Marquart
|Nature of Action:||Other (Civil)|
|Term:||10/2012  Argument: 10/24/2012 Waived|
|ND cite:||2012 ND 236|
823 N.W.2d 786
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I. Did Randy Holkesvig intentionally, willfully and inexcusably disobey a District Court Order that was issued by Judge Wickham Corwin?
II. Did Judge Marquart intentionally, willfully and inexcusably abuse his discretions with his Order/Ruling issued on 3-30-12 that indicates there is illegal, immoral and unethical sanction fines being applied against me?
Reply Brief Issues
I. Did Judges Corwin and Marquart legally inform me with a notice of my constitutional right to appointed counsel in a contempt proceeding from 3-31-11 and 3-28-12?
II. Did the Plaintiff prove his claims have merit and were not frivolous and the Defendants are not entitled to any relief?
III. Are issues not briefed by an appellee deemed to be conceded and waived and considered to be true facts?
IV. Should a new trial be granted because serious injustice has occurred?
V. Should Attorney's fees should be awarded to Appellant?
VI. Is Article XI, Section 4 of the ND State Constitution legal and valid?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Did the trial court properly find Plaintiff in contempt of court after the trial court ordered no further pleadings or documents of any kind were to be filed and Plaintiff repeatedly filed post-judgment pleadings and documents in violation of the trial court's orders?
II. Is Plaintiff improperly attempting to re-litigate the merits of the underlying civil case, which was dismissed by the trial court, because Plaintiff's arguments focus on the underlying court order dismissing Plaintiff's claims and not the finding and order for contempt?
III. Are Defendants entitled to damages and costs of the appeal in accordance with Rule 38 of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure because Plaintiff's appeal is repetitious and completely devoid of merit?
|Add Docket 20120203 RSS|
|1||04/24/2012||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 04/24/2012|
|2||04/24/2012||This case is consolidated w/20120204 & 20120205. Make all docket entries in this case except|
|3||04/24/2012||ROA, DIS & MAN|
|4||04/26/2012||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL (ENTRY NOS 1-273) certified in Supreme Court No. 20110373|
|5||04/27/2012||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 04/27/2012|
|6||05/02/2012||Motion to Corr. and Refund Appeal Fees and to Corr. the Legal Advice Rec. from Clerks of Sup.Ct.|
|8||05/07/2012||"Objection to Partial Satisfaction of Judgement of Dismissal and Proposed Order on Appeal Costs|
|9||05/07/2012||and Expenses" by Appellant -- put in file|
|10||05/09/2012||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Motion to Corr. and Refund Appeal Fees and to Corr. the Leg. Advice Rec.). Denied|
|11||05/09/2012||Filing Fees Received (Rec. 21171)|
|12||05/09/2012||Order/Judgment Sent to Parties|
|13||05/14/2012||TRANSCRIPT DATED March 28, 2012 & C.O.S.|
|14||05/14/2012||DISK - TRA dated March 28, 2012 (e-mailed)|
|15||05/29/2012||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED 05/25/2012(ENTRY NOS.1-328, Items not sent 146,148,181,182,226)|
|16||06/05/2012||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|17||06/05/2012||ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 07/23/2012|
|18||06/06/2012||1st ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED June 5, 2012 (ENTRY NOS. 329 - 331)|
|19||06/13/2012||2nd ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED 06/12/2012 (ENTRY NOS.332-334)|
|20||06/08/2012||MOTION TO REQUEST RECONSIDERATION BY APPELLANT|
|21||06/20/2012||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (adhere to previous action). Denied|
|22||07/09/2012||APPELLANT BRIEF (corrected ATB filed 7-16-12)|
|23||07/09/2012||APPELLANT APPENDIX #1|
|24||07/16/2012||MOTION to Correct Appeal Brief & Include Appendix #2 to Modify|
|25||07/16/2012||Corrections as Requested|
|26||07/16/2012||NO ACTION TAKEN|
|27||07/16/2012||Corrected Appellant's Brief (TOA & pages corrected)|
|28||07/16/2012||DISK - atb (e-mailed)|
|29||07/16/2012||Additional Appendix #1|
|30||07/16/2012||APPELLANT APPENDIX #2|
|31||07/16/2012||3rd ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED 07/13/2012 (ENTRY NOS.335-339)|
|36||08/13/2012||Received surcharge for AEB (Receipt #21299)|
|37||08/14/2012||Received 7 copies of AEB from CSD|
|38||08/14/2012||Received 6 copies of AEA from CSD|
|39||08/14/2012||4th ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED 8/13/2012 (ENTRY NOS.343-344)|
|40||08/16/2012||MOTION FOR REMAND|
|41||08/17/2012||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE. Denied|
|42||08/21/2012||MOT. EXT/TIME REPLY BRIEF|
|44||08/22/2012||ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 08/29/2012|
|45||08/17/2012||5th ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED 8/16/12 (ENTRY NOS. 345-346)|
|46||08/26/2012||DISK - RYB (e-mailed)|
|47||08/27/2012||REPLY BRIEF of Appellant|
|48||09/17/2012||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|49||10/16/2012||S.CT. DETERMINED ORAL ARGUMENT NOT NECESSARY|
|50||10/24/2012||APPEARANCES: Waived under N.D.R.App.P. 34(a)|
|52||11/27/2012||DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED BY SUMMARY DISP.|
|53||11/27/2012||UNANIMOUS OPINION: Per Curiam|
|54||11/27/2012||Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellees|
|55||11/28/2012||Judgment Sent to Parties|
|56||11/30/2012||PETITION FOR REHEARING|
|57||11/30/2012||DISK - PER|
|58||12/18/2012||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied|
|59||12/21/2012||MOTION TO STAY THE COURT'S MANDATE PENDING A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI|
|60||12/21/2012||ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 01/18/2013|
|61||01/02/2013||MOTION TO STAY THE COURT'S MANDATE PENDING A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI|
|62||01/02/2013||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE. Granted: 03/21/2013|
|63||03/19/2013||Notice of Filing Petition for Writ of Certiorari to U.S. Supreme Court|
|64||05/17/2013||Notice from U.S. Supreme Court that Petition for Writ of Certiorari is denied|
|66||07/26/2013||Received notice that petition for rehearing to U.S. Supreme Court denied|